February 25, 2008

Mr Kristol, you get a C in economics!

There! I said it, and I feel better already. I have waited a really long time to do this, and I am happy that Bill Kristol finally gave me an opportunity with his column in today's New York Times. More on what he wrote below, but first let me explain why I take great pleasure in pointing out his boo-boo. No, it's not because we probably disagree on everything nowadays.

It's that he was my dreaded instructor long ago in two of the classes that I took as a Harvard undergraduate. He was a doctoral student at the time in the Government Department (no relation to the HKS), and I was a freshman and sophomore in the college. The first course was Harvey Mansfield's political theory course (for which Kristol served as teaching fellow), and the second was a sophomore tutorial (a required course for government concentrators).

In each course, we had to write short papers once every couple of weeks. I can say that my performance on these papers, which Kristol graded, was fairly consistent. The essay on Machiavelli? Here is a C-. The essay on the Federalist Papers? Here is a C. John Stuart Mill? Well, how about, yes you guessed it, another C. You can say that Kristol did his best to discourage me from pursuing a career in political science...

I remember well the very first time I saw him. It was the first meeting of the discussion session in Mansfield's course, and I had been assigned to Kristol's section. He walked into the classroom and his first words were: "Hello, my name is Mr. Kristol." To underscore the point that he was that, and not Bill or any other friendly appellations by which we students may have chosen to address him, he went to the board and wrote "Mr. Kristol." I may have been a poorly adjusted Turk in my first year in the U.S., but this still struck me as odd. He was certainly the only graduate student I met in my four years as an undergraduate who insisted on being called by his last name.

Well, Mr. Kristol's column today takes aim at Barack (and Michelle) Obama, and does so quite unfairly in my view. But I will leave a detailed exegesis of his argument to others. What caught my attention was this passage:

Michelle Obama, in the course of a stump speech, remarked, “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change.”

Michelle Obama’s adult life goes back to the mid-1980s. Can it really be the case that nothing the U.S. achieved since then has made her proud? Apparently. For, as she said later in the same appearance: “Life for regular folks has gotten worse over the course of my lifetime, through Republican and Democratic administrations. It hasn’t gotten much better.”

Now in almost every empirical respect, American lives have in fact gotten better over the last quarter-century.

Really? Look at the chart below, which comes from Frank Levy, my authority on such matters. It shows the median compensation since 1980 of different groups of prime-aged men, alongside productivity.

People like me with graduate degrees have done great. But the median compensation (that includes fringe benefits, by the way) of high school graduate men has declined by about 10 percent since 1980! Mr. Kristol: that means that for a high-school graduate, the odds that his compensation would have fallen by more than 10% is 50-50. Note that even college graduates have not seen any income gains since around 2000. The increase in labor productivity has outpaced the earnings of all these groups, including that of workers with graduate degrees. (The outcomes for women have been much better.)

What is special about the last quarter century, as Frank Levy makes clear, is that it followed a period when productivity increases were broadly shared by different groups in society. That is no longer the case, and some groups have definitely been left worse off--not just in relative but also in absolute terms.

So statistics aside, who do you think has a better sense of what has happened to "regular folk" since 1980? Michelle Obama or Mr. Kristol?

Interesting, but how do you reconcile big rises in productivity with declining earnings for workers with low education? Your implicit answer is that technological progress has acted as a substitute for low-skill workers. I buy that, but here are other alternatives. 1. The price deflators are wrong. After all, computers, videos, TVs, refirgerators, etc.. have dropped in price remarkably after adjusting for quality. This does not overcome the inequality (unless consumption patters differ) but it should lift all boats in real terms. 2. Immigration. Adding newly arrived immigrants every year may dent the calculations somewhat.

Frank are you so used to throwing out that answer that even when it doesn't apply you'll still use it? Real GDP increased, even if the price deflator is wrong, capital would still be getting a much bigger share than previously.

Two comments,
Michelle Obama entered Harvard -- left Chicago -- in 1985 I believe. Meaning she left Chicago just before it shed its significant white racism (significant meaning up to 50% of the whites had some taint; maybe 7% were serious racists) -- in my personal observation anyway.

In 1985, Harold Washington was elected mayor, here. That same week, black taxi riders began tipping drivers (me) -- half as much at first (I was formerly a Bronx/Harlem gypsy in case there is any question of my motives here) -- they finally started to feel "freakish" about not tipping; I guessed as in they were finally feeling they had something social to lose.

Over the next five years I sensed, though I cannot quite explain why (by now anyway) that Chicago's white racism was receding "backwards", that is: as the blacks cared less about white racism, whites reacted by feeling less racist. By, 1990 I no had to agree with my black riders from out of town that I wouldn't want to raise a black child here because it would grow up feeling too "different."

So that is the not so nice American experience that Michelle Obama started out with.

(Very ironically I now have run into racist blacks at about the same percentage as Chicago whites formerly were in the San Francisco/Berkeley area of all places. Super-sized Evanston: supposedly the most liberal whites in the country; actually the richest whites in the country who do absolutely nothing for their poor minorities [in S.F. they will vote for a high minimum wage if someone puts it on the ballot, heavy activists, not them -- but would never conjure up such an action on their own]. As a result when I get back to Chicago after a while there, I am afraid to talk to black people for two weeks: I cringe and wait to see if they will answer me back or pretend I don't exist (not embarrassing there; normal) -- I know better but after months of S.F./Berkeley it becomes a Pavlovian expectation. When you gonna best LBJ's minimum wage by $100/wk Berkeley?).
**************
If you go by an actual minimum needs budget (adjusted for current dollars) as found in the 2001 book Raise the Floor (minimum needs contrasted to the half the median income European poverty standard which definitely wouldn't be accurate here*, or America's farcical three time the price of an emergency diet poverty standard), the minimum needs of a family of four with a $10,000 health insurance bill is $41,000 -- not hugely off the median compensation for high schooled men in the chart above. If the median wage in America is such a near fit to a realistic family poverty standard we definitely may be doing something very wrong.

*According to p.121 of The State of Working America, 2006/2007: the median wage in America grew only 10% from 1973 to 2005 -- while the Census says per capita income grew about 70% (albeit while a lot more family members went to work).

The secret of neo-con rhetoric is that it unconstrained by any attachment to real data. Remember the quote about the administration making its own reality?

This is a characteristic of true ideological followers (what psychologist Robert Altemeyer calls the Right Wing Authoritarian personality type). Whatever doesn't fit their framework is ignored, dismissed with irrelevant counter arguments, or if that fails, then replaced by ad hominem attacks on those presenting the data.

Kristol is especially valuable to the neo-con leadership because he is a fool, but a witty one. He lacks the intellect to examine the data for himself and thus is the perfect conduit for the propaganda effort of the moment.

He can reframe a dry argument into a colorful piece and get it placed in a highly visible spot such as the NY Times or on one of the talking head shows.

The right seems to have a stable of them currently, including David Brooks and Ben Stein. The left needs better writers! They can't depend upon Comedy Central to do all the heavy lifting.

You said "Real GDP increased, even if the price deflator is wrong, capital would still be getting a much bigger share than previously."

I said: "1. The price deflators are wrong. [..] This does not overcome the inequality (unless consumption patters differ) but it should lift all boats in real terms."

In other words I am questioning not the rise in inequality - there is no doubt about that - but the decline of real income of those with low levels of education. I am concerned about the absolute levels. Different prices would definitely affect that.

Now, we know there have been enormous increases in quality of many products. Suppose our price index over-estimates inflation by 3% p.a. (is that plausible? I DON'T KNOW but I'd like a good answer) and incomes of those with low educations rise by the same amount in nominal terms. Then the net effect is no gain in MEASURED real terms. My point is that since income gains are likely to have been small, they will easily be washed out by small errors in prices.

Anecdotally, TATA of India just brought to the market a $2,000+- car. At this pace of technological innovation you would need massive declines in nominal incomes to keep real incomes constant...

Which a) has been on sale for a massive week, b) isn't on sale in the US, and c) can't legally be sold in the US (or Europe, Canada, developed Asia, or Australia or New Zealand) because it doesn't meet crash-safety standards or air pollution standards.

Suppose our price index over-estimates inflation by 3% p.a. (is that plausible? I DON'T KNOW but I'd like a good answer) and incomes of those with low educations rise by the same amount in nominal terms. Then the net effect is no gain in MEASURED real terms.

"There's no evidence for that...but it is a *scientific fact*!"

Seriously, if the foundation of your argument is that absolutely all the measurements are wrong in the direction you would prefer them to be wrong and you have absolutely no evidence for this, you ought to shut up.

Frank,
Technological deflation improves the value of incomes that have grown faster than inflation, too -- not just the folks left behind by what is gently called "inequality" (I prefer Great Wage Depression!). The true question is not whether "flying cars" for the same price will put those left behind by economic growth (or even inflation!) ABSOLUTELY better off -- but whether they are relatively better off (that is the question to THEM anyway :-]).

It may be of great succor to me that we can have this conversation that would have been impossible 28 years ago -- not to mention HDTV for the same 600 adjusted dollars -- but if I were still a Chicago cab driver I would literally be earning half as many of those adjusted dollars per hour as I did 28 years ago ( after starving the meter, building subways to both airports, opening up unlimited limos -- but did they have to add 40% more cabs? -- labor don't matter much here) I would also be missing neat vacations and investing in securities (no more responsibilities) that the job one time would have paid for. It's not about numbing poverty -- its about everybody making out.

In 1991, I read in BusinessWeek that McDonalds had 70% employee turnover every 90 days. As the fed minimum wage sunk to 1939 levels, $5.15/hr (v. $4.50/hr w/no tax) I observed the same happy Mexican faces year in and year out behind the counters, here and in S.F. (also Chinese out there). Now that the min wage here has moved up to about 50 cents short of Eisenhower's 1956 minimum, I actually see some American born faces showing up behind the counter (business has noticeably picked up too -- all from the third-world segment who may now be able to purchase what they serve occasionally).

It is not all about higher tech folks getting a greater share: docs' incomes dropped 7% from 1993 to 2005 as per capita income grew about 10%. Docs have to depend on the majority to pay them I guess; the ever richer don't have more livers or teeth to attend to.

1) For people on indexed incomes, we cannot cut back on their potato money because they may obtain a better TV (or "flying cars") for the same price).

2a) Only God could compute a sensible "unified" inflation number for my modern Timex being X? many better than the Timex of my 1960 youth for half the price;
2b) We humans could not make any sense out of the single number unless it were broken back out into the two original ones.

3) Since average income grows 15-20% every decade anyway, the sky wont look like it's going to fall (unless your name is Newt Gingrich) if we don't have a "philosophically" perfect inflation number (most of us can wait until we get to heaven). Don't worry; be happy (assuming everybody gets their fair share, of course).

There is no way we could be off by really far like 3%. For one, there are lots of ways to measure prices. We can measure consumer prices, producer prices, we can look at wages, and we can look at interest rates.

Let's suppose that somehow prices each year were really 3% lower than the CPI said. How would companies be making profit? They'd have to be paying lower costs (or see huge increases in sales). So we'd have to see concurrent drops in prices producers pay like the PPI, wages and interest rates.

Think of what an investor would do, interest rates would have to be 3% higher here to attract capital. We'd also see lots more foreigners buying US products to benefit from our low prices.

There is just no way an error like that could happen and not be observed. It is true that electronic goods have seen dramatic decreases in prices over that time period. But to help your intuition, it might help to think about the other areas of consumption. Computer power has gotten very cheap very rapidly, but other things haven't, things like labor, raw materials, agriculture. Where are prices rising? Labor intesive sectors like medical care and education are seeing big price rises. Housing has seen a modest price increase (price to rent, price to own saw major increases due to asset bubble). And energy and food stuffs have seen price increases.

Average all this stuff out and you get moderate inflation, which all the indices agree on.

As a student currently taking both Mansfield’s political theory course, and gov. sophomore tutorial, and writing papers on both the Federalist and Machiavelli in the next few days (both courses with the same awesome-so-far, but-we’ll-see-how-the-paper-grades-go, graduate student tutor/teaching fellow), this post seems particularly relevant. :)

Kristol is a predictable clown though, and it’s a wonder the New York Times would honor him with a column. Safire at least wrote well, and occasionally said something interesting. Every Kristol column I've seen so far has been both ploddingly dull stylistically, and stupidly argued.

"Now in almost every empirical respect, American lives have in fact gotten better over the last quarter-century."

Sounds like neither Kristol or Rodrik is fully, completely wrong.

What has gotten better?
1. all sorts of goods and services BOTH cost less and do more than 25 years ago.
2. Life expectancy is better.
3. Personal computers - Apple-Mac & MS-PCs
4. Mobile phones
5. FAX machines
6. The Internet came out of the government/military into the rest of the world.
7. Communism in the USSR went kaput and China became a market economy.

and DR correctly points out that wealth distribution skewed toward the rich.

and BK worries about Islamic terror and Iran but not so much the fate of the perpetrator of 9/11.

PS If you kept those "C" papers from your undergraduate days I wonder what grade you might get if you submitted them anonymously to other graders.

The assumption necessary to right-wing arguments such as Kristol's is that everyone has access to the same hedonic improvements, that everyone has the same range of choice, can substitute in comparable ways: Is it really necessary to state the obvious, that they do not and can not.

But then economics is not really Kristol's primary concern here: Given his role over the years it seems far more likely that the real goal is to further develop the grounds for a concerted attack on progressive policies generally and what seems likely to be their iconic representative in the next election, the Obamas.

The only time neocons like Kristol are likely to focus on the specific rather than the generic is when they assassinate personalities.

Kristol said "in almost every empirical respect". He did not say "in every empirical respect". To counter this you have given only one measurement out of many. So you have not proven him wrong and you still get a C.

I am about the same age as Barack Obama, and this is the second time in my adult life that I've seriously considered being proud of my country. The first time was in 1992 when Bill Clinton was elected despite taking some stands that seemed pretty bold for a DLC candidate. But then the Clintons screwed the pooch and lost Congress almost immediately, so I was never really very proud about that election.

We'll see what happens this time.

I have, by the way, been proud of small segments of the country such as my infantry platoon, but I can't think of when I've ever been really lastingly proud of any collective larger than about 100 people.

It would seem to me that a greater proportion of the population has college degrees and graduate degrees today than in the 1980s. If that is the case, human capital is also rising. Without holding education constant, I think it likely that median compensation for the population is rising. Maybe Kristol's economics isn't so bad after all.

I understand what you're suggesting, but "better off," is significantly different than "better absolute income." If you've taken a look at Michael Marmot's work, you'll see that discrepancies in income within a developed nation have deleterious effects on overall, absolute well-being for those on the bottom end. I think we're all really interested in well-being and we're using income as a proxy. Anything that exacerbates the gap in income, (and based on the figure, I think we can safely say the gap has been exacerbated) would have larger deleterious effects on over-all well-being as manifested by a number of physical and mental health indicators. Which is to say: just because you can buy a better car now than you could 20 years ago doesn't mean you're actually better off, it just means you have a better car. Or maybe, put differently: money can't buy you love, especially if the other guy can still buy a bigger bouquet.

If folks don't realize what Arnold Kling is promoting, it's Economic Facts and Fallacies by Thomas Sowell. Sowell has long tried to promote the rightwing view that a rising tide lifts all boats. Simply because Sowell says so does not mean one can simply dismiss the work of others. Read both for yourselves and then judge.

If folks don't realize what Arnold Kling is promoting, it's Economic Facts and Fallacies by Thomas Sowell. Sowell has long tried to promote the rightwing view that a rising tide lifts all boats. Simply because Sowell says so does not mean one can simply dismiss the work of others. Read both for yourselves and then judge.

If most people today are at least college graduates compared to 1980 (or if many who did not get high school graduation do now), you can not directly compare 2008's high school graduates with 1980's high school graduates, because they are not the same population.

I don't know about the US, so I can't tell, but it would be a very significant difference in France.

For the past several years, I have worked under the assumption that everything that William Kristol says is wrong and it has paid off handsomely. But I do have a question: Aren't people getting more education these days and if so, isn't the profile of someone with only a high school degree in 1980 a lot different than someone in 2008?

This paper provides a comprehensive survey on six aspects of rising inequality: changes in labor’s share, inequality at the bottom, inequality at the top, labor mobility, inequality in consumption as contrasted to inequality of income, and international differences in inequality, particularly at the top. Outside the scope of this paper are changes in the rate of return to higher education, the evolution of the college wage premium, and the mechanisms by which family human capital is transmitted to children.

We conclude that changes in labor’s share play no role in rising inequality of labor income; by one measure labor’s income share was almost the same in mid‐2007 as in 1950. Within the bottom 90 percent as documented by CPS data, movements in the 50‐10 ratio are consistent with a role of decreased union density for men and of a decrease in the real minimum wage for women, particularly in 1980‐86. There is little evidence on the effects of imports, and an ambiguous literature on immigration which implies a small overall impact on the wages of the average native American, a significant downward effect on high‐school dropouts, and potentially a large impact on previous immigrants working in occupations in which immigrants specialize.

Let me copy a Michelle Obama related comment from the article, "A black person born in the bottom quintile of the income distribution has a 42 percent chance of staying there as an adult, as opposed to an only 17 percent chance for a white person. Overall, the results for intergenerational mobility are similar to those for individuals—people who begin life with low income are likely to stay that way, and this has changed little over time."

For those of us not able to attend Ivy League schools and doomed to negative income growth I ask, what happened to the supposed A-B curve? Isnt a "C" akin to outright failure...Jacob any comment on that one?

i just, I just can't not respond when people use things like the cost of televisions
on the plus side of the ledger: might as well use Big Macs (I know, i know, economists do have a big mac index). and one thing to point out about the cost of "mobile phones" is that they are rising -- my phone plan with Tmobile, which I've kept three years after a one year contract, is cheaper than any I could sign up with today, although my texting capability has been taken away. the phone sales guy tells me it's because the new infrastructure for handling more data over the phoneways is expensive due to the convenience of being able to get online, etc. I told him I don't need my phone to be online, I need my phone to be on the phone.

so, how about those cheap electronics and big macs in in comparison with
health insurance,education, transportations, and housing -- ie what people have to spend their money on to stay afloat or alive ...

and if we're going to count communism's "kaputness" along with China's "market economy" (wtf?) then on the bad ledger let's remember that the US has become the world leader in incarceration rate per capita, and that a male African American child born today can expect
not Jim Crow
but a one in three chance
of going to prison ... (was 1/20 30 years ago).

I'd like to know how solid it is that "for a high-school graduate, the odds that his compensation would have fallen by more than 10% is 50-50". Your graph is compatible with that, but does not force it. I believe it's also compatible with a world in which
(a) every high-school graduate's compensation has been rising, but
(b) new immigrants (disproportionately ill-educated and ill-paid although better-paid than they were before) bring down that curve, and
(c) education is increasingly a separating signal, in that the sort of kid who in 1980 might have stopped with decent job prospects after high school will now, because of (b) and self-reinforcing (c), tend to get a college degree eventually. The "high-school only" category is, in this world, occupied by those who are either new entrants or who really couldn't handle even easily-available junior colleges -- which was not the case in 1980.

I know you said fringe benefits are included, but do the numbers behind that graph include government transfers like EITC, food stamps, etc? If you included government transfers how different would the story look?

If government transfers like the EITC are the best way to help make the working poor "better off", but we never include them in our calculations of welfare over time, then we would not see improvements under even most generous policies.

Imagine next year the EITC is increased such that it doubled earnings for the bottom quartile. Surely a realistic depiction of how "well off" people were should reflect that change, but, if I am correct about gov't transfers, the above graph wouldn't.

In the interest of full disclosure, don't you think you should acknowledge that virtually every other grade you received as an undergrad was an A (or some variant thereof)? I'm guessing, of course, but it's a reasonably informed guess. :) Great post; keep it up.

I'd like to point out that while only the green line looks like it has been doing badly since 1980, that line represents something like 2/3 of workers (since only 33% of the population has a bachelor's degree or better).

People usually say :"Seeing is believing." http://www.tt88times.com
Each attempt has a corresponding gain, in part or obvious, or vague. At least we have the kind of satisfaction After I bought this watch ,in a sense,it means a great deal to me. http://www.fashionhairfu.com

Real beauty comes from learning, growing, and loving in the ways of life. That is the Art of Life. You can learn slowly, and sometimes painfully, by just waiting for life to happen to you. Or you can choose to accelerate your growth and intentionally devour life and all it offers. You are the artist that paints your future with the brush of today

I already have my [url=http://www.mbtsandal.com/mbt-changa-c-17.html]MBT Changa[/url] shoes more than 6 months - using mainly taken the 3-4 mile walk. Once you become comfortable walking shoes, main battle tanks, you will find that your leg muscles work the way you will not encounter in normal shoes. For the first few times you wear, about 20 minutes after the pain disappears, it seems effortless and walking.
Shorten your stride, faster, of course, you go straight you pull back and stomach in.
You may have heard on one of the points is to go a mile in the main battle tank shoes, walking shoes are common in the exercise equivalent of two miles. I can not find any research confirms this view.
Personally, I noticed that my muscles get more exercise when I wear [url=http://www.mbtsandal.com/mbt-chapa-gtx-c-18.html]Cheap MBT Chapa GTX Shoes[/url]. Since I bought them, I would like to walk more and longer distances, leading to weight loss.
I have chronic back pain my entire adult life, and to walk in these shoes shift away the pressure on my back. I have discussed, who also has a few people [url=http://www.mbtsandal.com/]Discount MBT Shoes[/url], they say, they are the only shoes to wear, because they reduce their back pain.

I like these articles , democratic countries formulate policies are both team and the interests of the people of power, but the undemocratic countries rarely for the interests of the people, http://www.jerseysky.com it is the sorrow of many democracy, I like the western and northern state policy.http://www.cheapsaleing.com

I think this is a great post. One thing that I find the most helpful is number five. Sometimes when I write, I just let the flow of the words and information come out so much that I loose the purpose. It’s only after editing when I realize what I’ve done. There’s defiantly a lot of great tips here I’m going to try to be more aware of.

The articles you wrote was very good,and since I read it,now I will read every day.and hope you will assit them.please do not lose heart
We should care about people and things around us. Even though the international economic how to change. Thanks you put this paper in your blog.

Just like everywhere else on our bodies, the feet are taken for granted until we have a problem with them. [b][url=http://www.monclerlife.com/]Moncler jackets[/url] [/b]When you think about it, they have a tough old time of it: [b][url=http://www.monclerlife.com/]moncler coats[/url] [/b]supporting our weight, taking us from a to b and squeezing into all sorts of weird and wonderful shapes, [b][url=http://www.monclerlife.com/]moncler sale[/url] [/b]often simply in the name of fashion. Something not widely known is that in the region of 70% of the population will have the medical condition of athletes foot at some time during their lives. [b][url=http://www.monclerlife.com/]Moncler[/url] [/b]It is transmitted through contact moncler men with a cut or abrasion on the bottom of the foot.In order to block the media’s mouth, [url=http://www.monclerlife.com/][b]Moncler jackets sale[/b][/url] josep guardiola simply lead to his ankle, by macy shovel injury after five days, Lionel messi has begun to personal training, but many of the players, including carles puyol does not hope messi too narrowly, rush back, let alone to let him attend early October Argentina international competition. [b][url=http://www.monclerlife.com/moncler-jackets-men-c-9.html]Moncler jackets Men[/url] [/b]But guardiola is appears big degree, he said he supports messi in Japan to play for your discount moncler country and I think he should be back, Lionel messi recovering well, and to play for your country. [url=http://www.monclerlife.com/moncler-jackets-women-c-0_10.html][b]moncler jackets women[/b][/url] At the beginning of last season, Barcelona had complained to the travel arrangements FIFA international players have become too full, and this seriously affected the team’s status, Lionel messi was the victim of one. Guardiola has repeatedly called for England international has said, now he is serious to actively support messi inconsistent play, [url=http://www.monclerlife.com/moncler-quincy-women-down-jackets-black-p-87.html][b]moncler jackets women black[/b][/url] don’t know this is really think, or just smoke flare.

One of polo shirts for men the primary concerns as soon as it comes to article translation is loyalty and privacy. As one will provide several documents they might have polo shirts wholesale sensitive or classified info concerning your business, and there is a great polo ralph lauren sweater deal of risk that it may leak out. http://wholesale-polos.com/

This is my first time i visit here. I found interesting things to many in his blog, mostly to the debate. Of the tons of comments on your articles, I’m not the only one who has all the fun here! Keep up the good work. This award is given for the place with a good condition of weather. So it’s really depend on their luck to win this award.

Many places and centers offer business and trade promotions to both buyers and supplier.What about the differences in skill intensities across industries? The job losses in the relatively unskilled-labor intensive battery industry should have little effect on the relatively skilled-labor intensive machinery sexshopsexyshopsexshop online